Garbo Speaks? Nah, it's just the Bully Boy

Garbo Speaks? That's what the big advertising slogan was for her first talking picture. (Anna Christie.) Is that what today's press has descended to as they cover Bully Boy? Publicity departments for the White House? Check out these headlines.

"Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Adviser" (Associated Press)
"Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" (Associated Press)
"Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S." (Associated Press)

We understand that the Associated Press covers many things but the headlines (and articles) aren't all that different than from what most news organizations run. (And many run the AP articles themselves.)

What we're not getting is why an article headlined, for instance, "Bush Confident Iraq Will Avoid Civil War" that never goes beyond providing free advertising to an administration talking point qualifies as news?

Bully Boy is confident, is he? Well was he publicly confident regarding Iraq before? (Yes.) And how did that turn out? Wouldn't that be a part of a real news article? "Today Bully Boy said he was confident that Iraq would avoid a civil war. Earlier, he had stated that he was confident that the mission had been accomplished as evidenced by the White House created banner displayed behind him. As we now know, the violence did not end then . . ."

How about the first headline? "Bush Shocked by Arrest of Former Advisor." Now is that reporting? Bully Boy is "shocked"? How do they know that? They know that he stated he was shocked. They can verify that. The article, in fact, makes that point. If "Said He Was" made up too many words for the headline, how about this "Bush 'Was Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor." Or even "Bush 'Shocked' by Arrest of Former Advisor"?

The third headline comes the closest to reporting, "Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt the U.S." Alas, then you read the article. "Both" sides reporting, at it's worst. Bully Boy makes a claim -- the scuttling of the deal could hurt the US. The article then, far into the article, presents some Democrats who are quoted (as our Republicans) on the need for safety. Then you're greeted at the end by unnamed (and unnumbered) "analysts" who agree with Bully Boy's claim. Who are these "analysists"? How many of them? Who provided them to the AP? Were there not any analysists who could refute the claim?

"Both" sides is not someone makes a claim and the claim's allowed to go undisputed. It's also not providing unnamed sources at the very end ("analysts") who back up the claim. The reader has no clue as to whom these analysts are or what their credentials are.

These points were raised in "NYT: Ga-Ga-Goo-Goo, Bully Boy speaks" and we still think they're valid. From that entry:

How embarrassing must it be for grown adults who think they're reporters, who put that on their passports, on the tax forms, to be stuck writing ad copy for the Bully Boy? Don't kid yourself that this is anything but ad copy.
Ava and I do TV reviews for The Third Estate Sunday Review (including one on a Bully Boy speech). That means something more than: "Today, our fearless leader was on NBC Nightly News. Brave leader said . . ."
But that's really all you get in the Times today. Adults embarrassing themselves with their lack of critical skills, as they rush to jot down what 'Brave Leader' said.
Richard W. Stevenson turns in "Race Not Factor In Aid, Bush Says" which mistakes news value in Bully Boy's statement that he's not a racist. It does *not* explore the statement. It doesn't try to provide perspective as to why his programs and responses might lead anyone to conclude that he is or is not a racist. It just tells you "Brave Leader" went on NBC Nightly News and said he wasn't one.
Then you have David E. Sanger and Erich Schmitt, working the same green room, telling you that on NBC Nightly News, "Bush Says He's Confident That He and McCain Will Reach Agreement on Interrogation Policy." They probably assume what they've written counts as a "critique." It's the same superficial nonsense that appeared in Monday's paper, on the same topic, with the only bit of news buried within. If there's any news value in the article, it's that the "Doomsday Scenario" -- why does everythign coming out of this administration sound like a torn and tattered airport novel? -- is being pushed by the administration.
"Doomsday Scenario"? The ticking time bomb nonsense once again. The sort of crap Nicky K and our latter day online Dylan wet themselves over with their dirty bomb nonsense. (It's not surprising that science doesn't enter Nicky K's head, it is suprising that with all our latter day Dylan's focus on education, he's yet to look at the issue scientifically or note the science community caveats on this topic and how they rank in terms of threats. Apparently someone's seen too many TV and film portrayals of backpacked dirty bombs to grasp that there's "reality" in film and TV and then reality in life.) So combining bits from Dershowitz's nightmare with bits of panic from just about everywhere, Stephen J. Hadley (who truly should have been asked who he informed about the e-mail Rove sent him long ago) and others argue that torture must be an option if we know that in mere hours a nuke may go off.
This isn't worst case scenario, note that. This administration can't address a nation honestly, they must always go for the highest drama. They must always attempt to goad the public into responding based upon a fear response. Helps keep the "bully" in Bully Boy.
And bad writing, jotting down what Bully Boy says and treating it as news, helps keep the public uninformed.
Wait, we're not done. Bully Boy Speaks! is being pimped like he's Garbo in her first talkie. Elisabeth Bumiller is left with "Iraqi Election Will Not End Security Threats, Bush Says." Of the three, believe it or not, it's the best written. (Yes, believe it or not.) That may be due to the fact that she's not covering the softballs she saw tossed to Bully Boy on TV. Bully Boy gave a speech in Philadelphia. And he actually was asked questions! And he answered some!
That's how low we've fallen as a nation. When a Bully Boy takes a few moments to respond to questions, it is actually news. Bully Boy, in response to a question, estimates that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion/occupation. What does that mean? That means the mainstream media can now safely use a number because Bully Boy has spoken.